Oral function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: A matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) develop swallowing difficulties with the progression of the disease. The present study aimed at comparing oral function and body composition between ALS patients and healthy controls, and at evaluating which parameters are the most discriminant between both groups. METHODS: We included ALS patients at the start of their multidisciplinary follow-up at the Geneva University Hospitals and healthy age-, gender-, and dental status-matched adults. We assessed the severity of the disease through the ALS Functional Rating Scale and the swallowing difficulties through the EAT-10 score. We performed an intraoral examination of the dental status, and measured chewing performance, bite, lip and tongue force, saliva weight, and body composition. Group comparisons were performed with t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests as appropriate. Linear discriminant analysis was used to determine the most discriminant parameters between groups. RESULTS: Twenty-six ALS patients (bulbar onset: n = 7, median (IQR) ALS Functional Rating Scale: 37 (11)) were included. The ALS patients had a significantly lower chewing performance (p < 0.001), lip force (p < 0.001), tongue force (p = 0.002), saliva weight (p < 0.004) and fat-free mass index (p < 0.001) as compared to the healthy individuals, and a higher EAT-10 score (p < 0.001). In ALS patients, a low chewing performance was correlated with a low bite (r = -0.45, p < 0.05)) and tongue force (r = -0.59, p < 0.05). The most discriminant parameters between both groups, by order of importance, were chewing performance, fat-free mass index and saliva weight and allowed the calculation of a discriminant function. CONCLUSION: Compared to healthy controls, ALS patients have significant alterations of oral function and body composition. The most discriminant parameters between both groups were chewing performance, fat-free mass index and saliva volume. It remains to be demonstrated whether oral parameters predict outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01772888.

Multidisciplinary care in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a 4-year longitudinal observational study.

Over a four-year period, ALS patients complied with the modalities of the multidisciplinary management follow-up without any drop-outs. The multidisciplinary management structure also contributes to increasing the experience and knowledge of the clinicians involved in managing patients suffering from this rare disease.

Evaluation of three indirect calorimetry devices in mechanically ventilated patients: which device compares best with the Deltatrac II(®)? A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard to measure energy expenditure (EE) in hospitalized patients. The popular 30 year-old Deltatrac II(®) (Datex) IC is no more commercialized, but other manufacturers have developed new devices. This study aims at comparing for the first time simultaneously, two new IC, the CCM express(®) (Medgraphics) and the Quark RMR(®) (Cosmed) with the Deltatrac II(®) to assess their potential use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation, with positive end-expiratory pressure <9 cm H2O and fraction of inspired oxygen <60%, underwent measurements by the three IC simultaneously connected during 20 min to the ventilator (Evita XL(®), Dräger). Patients' characteristics, VO2 consumption, VCO2 production, respiratory quotient and EE were recorded. Data were presented as mean (SD) and compared by linear regression, repeated measure one-way ANOVA and Bland & Altman diagrams. RESULTS: Forty patients (23 males, 60(17) yrs, BMI 25.4(7.0) kg/m(2)) were included. For the Deltatrac II(®), VO2 was 227(61) ml/min, VCO2 189(52) ml/min and EE 1562(412) kcal/d. VO2, VCO2, and EE differed significantly between Deltatrac II(®) and CCM express(®) (p < 0.001), but not between Deltatrac II(®) and Quark RMR(®). For EE, diagrams showed a mean difference (2SD) of 25.2(441) kcal between Deltatrac II(®) vs. the Quark RMR(®), and -273 (532) kcal between Deltatrac II(®) vs CCM express(®). CONCLUSION: Quark RMR(®) compares better with Deltatrac II(®) than CCM express(®), but it suffers an EE variance of 441 kcal, which is not acceptable for clinical practice. New indirect IC should be further improved before recommending their clinical use in ICU.

Comparison of three indirect calorimetry devices and three methods of gas collection: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Indirect calorimetry was performed for a long time with the DeltatracII(®) device (Datex, Finland), considered as a reference but no longer produced. This study aims at comparing the energy expenditure (EE), the volume of oxygen (VO2) and carbon dioxide (VCO2) measured by two new available indirect calorimeters, the QuarkRMR(®) (Cosmed, Italy) and the CCMexpress(®) (MedGraphic,USA), using three different methods of gas collection, with the DeltatracII(®) in healthy subjects. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy subjects (15 women and 9 men, age 53 ± 15 yrs, mean BMI 25.5 ± 7.1 kg/m(2)) underwent measurements of EE with DeltatracII(®) using canopy, QuarkRMR(®) using canopy and CCMexpress(®) using canopy, face tent and facemask. All measurements were performed for 10 min in random order. Results are presented as mean ± SD and compared by linear regression, repeated measure one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc test and Bland & Altman test. RESULTS: EE was 1630 ± 340 kcal for DeltatracII(®) and 1607 ± 307 kcal, 1741 ± 360 kcal, 1666 ± 315 and 1626 ± 336 kcal for QuarkRMR(®) and CCMexpress(®) with canopy, face tent and facemask, respectively (p = 0.001). Compared to DeltatracII(®), Bland & Altman test showed a mean EE difference (2SD) of 24(220)kcal for QuarkRMR(®), and -111(260) kcal, -36(304) kcal, 5(402) kcal for CCMexpress(®) with canopy, face tent and facemask, respectively. There was no systematic over- or underestimation with any device or gas collection method. CONCLUSION: Mean EE was similar between QuarkRMR(®) and DeltatracII(®) but not between CCMexpress(®), in any mode of gas collection, and DeltatracII(®). Bland & Altman test shows a large variability in EE differences with both devices compared to DeltatracII(®), highlighting the need for refining their accuracy.